The High Trees Case: Promise or Gift

Published date01 March 1965
DOIhttp://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1965.tb01064.x
AuthorJ. Unger
Date01 March 1965
hI.utcii
1965
NOTES
OF
CASES
231
intention
of
P~rliament.'~ Further
it
is submitted that there are
occasions in the enforcement
of
these statutes where the public
interest may well demand the imposition of even such an extreme
form of vicarious criminal liability as has been postulated, parti-
cularly where a conflict of interest between employer and employee
can arise over the observance
of
the legi~lation.~~
Although this appears to be the first decision of the House of
Lords under the Licensing Acts, it is
of
course not the first occasion
on which the~,~5 and the Judicial Committee of the Privy CouncilY2"
have construed public welfare and control legislation. On these
occasions in recent years their lordships have appeared to show
some caution toward the imposition of strict
or
vicarious criminal
liabilit~.~'
If
this impression is correct the decision handed down
in
Vane's
case might well have been the same even if the same
question had been posed under some other statute.
R.
W.
L.
HOWELLS.
THE
HIGH
TREES
CASE:
PROMISE
OR
GIFT
IN
view of the heavy cloud of doubt and uncertainty which continues
to
hang over the principle of the
High
Trees
case the decision of
the Privy Council
in
Ajayi
v.
Briscoe,'
dealing with this principle,
demands careful consideration. The judgment of the Board,
delivered by Lord Hodson, might appear to have answered two
outstanding questions by insisting that equitable estoppel is only
available to
a
party who has altered his position to his detriment
and that the promisor
is
free to resile from his promise on giving
reasonable notice unless the promisee cannot resume his position.
However, the circumstances under which the principle of the
,High
Trees
case came to
be
considered on this occasion were such as
to detract considerably from the authority of these propositions
and the problem
of
the nature and qualifications of equitable
estoppel remains open for discussion.
The case arose out of two contracts made in Nigeria for hire-
purchase of eleven lorries valued at over.
;E24,000.
The hire-
purchaser fell into arrears
and
over
~11,000
was still unpaid when
he wrote to the owners of the lorries to inform them that the
lorries had been laid up in need of repair and servicing
for
which
no facilities were available. The owners wrote back promising to
23
e.g., Forsyth
v.
Phillips
(1964)
108
S.J.
36.
2:
Particularly industrial environmental safety legislation.
25
Generally when hearing civil actions baaed
on
breaches
of
statutory provisions.
26
Lim Chin Aik
v.
Queen (supra); Shrinivas Mall Bairoliva
v.
King Emperor
r19471
I.L.R.
26
Pat.
460.
27
There-are American parallels: Canada:
R.
v.
King
(1961)
34
C.R.
264;
R.
v.
JollimoTe
(1982)
36
C.R.
300;
U.S.A.:
Morisette
v.
US.,
340,
U.S.
246
(1951);
Packer,
I'
Mens Rea
and the Supreme Court
"
r19621
Supreme Ct.Rev.107.
-_-
1
119641
1
W.L.R.
1326; [1964] 3
All
E.R.
556.

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT